Federal govt backs judges’ transfers, seeks dismissal of petitions in SC
smartcybers786@gmail.com 
A view of Supreme Court building in Islamabad. — SC Website/File
#Federal #govt #backs #judges #transfers #seeks #dismissal #petitions
ISLAMABAD: The federal government has called on the Supreme Court to reject all the recent judicial appointments and all the petitions challenging the transfer, including those related to the Islamabad High Court.
“The relief of the petitioners has been denied all the counts and it has been said that the process initiated under Article 200 for the transfer of judges from Punjab, Sindh and Balochistan High Court demonstrates transparency and provides transparency and in no way it is in any way offending the independence of the judiciary.”
Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, Shahid Bilal Hassan, Salahuddin Panwar, and Shakeel Ahmed, headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, and IHC Bar Association, Karachi Bar Association (KBA) and IHC Bar Association, Justice Naeem Akhtar Akhtar Akhtar Akhtar Akhtar Akhtar Akhtar Akhtar, Akhtar Akhtar Akhtar, Akhtar Akhtar, Akhtar Akhtar Akhtar Akhtar Akhtar Akhtar Akhtar Akhtar.
In February, five IHC judges transferred Justice Sarfraz Dogar to the SC against the transfer of judges from the IHC to the High Court, along with the acting Chief Justice of the IHC.
Five IHC judges – Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Justice Tariq Mehmood Jehangiri, Justice Babar Sattar, Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan and Justice Saman Rift Imtiaz – filed a petition in the High Court under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution.
IHC judges urged the Apex court to declare that the president did not have made an indiscriminate and restless discretion to transfer judges from one High Court to another without the public interest, without the public interest, and in a manner that separated from the principles and powers of the judiciary.
Five IHC jurists also prayed to the Supreme Court to declare that according to the law announced by the High Court in the case of Aslam Owan and Firkh Irfan, the international of the respondents will be determined from the date of the number of IHC judges.
In its response presented today, the federal government maintained that the judges do not need to take any fresh oath after the transfer, as the transfer under Article 200 does not make any new appointment.
It states that “Article 200 (1) is related to the president’s authority to transfer the judges from one High Court to another, and thus the transition has been declared clear stability.”
The argument that the transition was temporarily rejected, the government had said that no such clause was mentioned for the temporary transfer of judges in the constitution.
Article 200 of Article 200 (1) of the term “or” during the period “has no use for such a period of clause (1), clearly reflects that the transition under it, contrary to the clause ()), is not in the nature of the temporary arrangements. Article 200 (1) is transferred to the reality of the transition.
The federal government highlighted that on January 1, 2025, the Judicial Commission (JCP) of Pakistan appointed two additional judges in the IHC and left three positions vacant.
According to the federal government, the Ministry of Law had sent a summary on January 28 to transfer judges to the Islamabad High Court. He emphasized that the president’s role in such a transition is limited, and that the original authority is with the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP).
Therefore, the government requested dismissal of all petitions filed against the appointments of judges, including the Islamabad High Court.
Final hearing
In the previous hearing, IHC judges’ lawyer Munir argued that the matter should be explained in the light of Article 175, as it fears the role of judicial transfer, federalism and management committees.
On this, SC’s Justice Mazhar said that the transfer of judges comes under Article 200 and the court cannot understand the judges as government employees.
The judge outline the four -level process of transfer of the judge: final approval from both the Chief Justice of both sending and receiving the transfer of the judge, sending and receiving the high courts, and the Chief Justice of Pakistan, after which the official notification was issued to the president.
He asked if this objection was in the list of transfer or seniority, to which Malik replied: “Both.”
Justice Mazhar further commented on the process of adding a new language to the Constitution, citing criticism of Article 62 (1) (F) Lifetime disqualification decision, which was later changed to review.
Justice Afghan asked: “Why was the new judges not appointed from the same provinces instead of transferring the current people when the vacancies are available?”
He also raised the question whether in an oath it is specifically mentioned as to which the judge is pledging allegiance to the High Court. Malik replied that the Islamabad Capital Territory has been explained in the draft of the oath.
Prior to the adjoining proceedings till April 17, the court issued notices to the Attorney General of Pakistan in response to the petitions of Acting Chief Justice of the Islamabad High Court, Sarfraz Dogar, Justice Khadim Hussain, Justice Muhammad Asif, Judicial Commission, and Five Judges.
